Talk:History of Poland (1939–1945)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about History of Poland (1939–1945). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Anyone reading this archive should be made aware that the comments signed as GH were made by the user now known as AM.

Links irrelevant?

I made a couple of minor changes, mainly with the effect of linking to other wikipedia articles which I found relevant. Now I see that none of these survived long. I can't help to ask why.
--Ruhrjung 09:22, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If I deleted any links you think are important I apologise. Feel free to restore them. Adam 09:30, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't like edit wars. If what I contributed wasn't approved, why should I bother to engage in wiki-warfare? I asked, and still ask, since I am seriously curious about what's wrong with the links to:

I admit to have done minor revisions to the text at the same time, and I understand that some of these changes, given the current tensed atmosphere around issues Polish, might have caused all of my changes to have been reverted, but I would be eager to learn which:

German Army	Wehrmacht
Nazi-Soviet Pact	Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
Cracow	Krakow
the mass murder by gassing of millions of Jews from Poland and other countries	the genocide by gassing of undesired "races," chiefly millions of Jews from Poland and other countries
It was German policy that the (non-Jewish) Poles were to be reduced to the status of serfs, and eventually replaced by German colonists.	It was German policy that the (non-Jewish) Poles, like other Slavic peoples, were to be reduced to the status of serfs, and eventually replaced by German colonists of "master race."
The Home Army [...] was formed from a number of smaller groups in 1942.	The Home Army [...] was formed from a number of smaller anti-Socialist groups in 1942.
By 1944 the AK had some 200,000 men, although few arms: the AL was much smaller. The AK killed about 150,000 German troops during the occupation.	By 1944 the AK had some 200,000 men, although few arms. During the occupation, the AK killed about 150,000 German troops. The AL was smaller and less significant.

--Ruhrjung 10:32, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally reverse any of your changes. They must have been overridden when I redirected General Government to this page. I don't have any problem with any of your changes so feel free to edit the page. Adam 11:20, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I knew we would have trouble with this. If Mr Anonymous Polish Patriot would like to become a user then we can debate these issues. Adam 12:56, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What is wrong with the detail description: "At the areas of former Soviet occupation, Germans tried to inicite hate against alleged Jewish collaboration with Soviets, so they could perform genocide local hands. It is alleged that this strategy initially succeeded in the town of Jedwabne. However, the truth about this incident is hotly disputed. " I think it is NPOV, while the previous version is POV.

Why you think that it is relevant to mention that some Poles were Anti-Semites, without taking into account, that Jewish culture flourished in Poland for 7 centuries?

If you say that Jews pointed out at Polish collboration, you should mention that Poles pointed out at Jewish collaboration? GH

GH:

If you are saying that the Germans incited the Poles to attack the Jews, well maybe they did, but the Poles needed no incitement. There were at least ten documented pogroms in Poland between 1918 and 1939.

ten pogroms means 1 every 2 years and you are saying that it is much? If I should counted riots of football fans on the street of my town, it would be like once a month. There is big difference, when there happenned ethnic riots in Poland before 1939, where there were police and independent judiciary system. Try to compare to situation in 1941 where Germans wanted Poles to kill Jews Polish hands and nobody could expect any punishment but only reward for wrongdoings.

It is not adequate to say that "some Poles were anti-Semites." Most Poles were anti-Semites, and both the Sanacja regime and Cardinal Hlond openly incited anti-Semitism. If Jewish culture flourished in Poland for 700 years it was despite Polish anti-Semitism.

You should know, that Sanacja was exactly anti- anti-Semites political movements. Endecja was anti-Semites and Sanacja was an enemy of Endecja ( and sometimes borrowed the political slogans from them).

Real life example, my family moved before 1939 to Jewish shtetl 5000 people 90% of Jews. How my family could have been Anti-Semites and move to whole Jewish neighbourhood?? Another question, how you could feel anti-Semitism around if 90% of your neighbours were Jewish?

If Poland had had 700 years history of anti-Semitism, why Jews wouldn't have emigrated to more friendly country?? (Hint: there were no other country so friendly to Jews then Poland, despite the fact that some Poles were anti-Semites, Jews immigrated to Poland in big numbers. The last 2 waves of Jewish immigration to Poland happenned in 1917-1921 from Soviet Russia and in 1933-1939 from Nazi Germany)

If you are alleging that Jews gave away Polish resistance fighters to the Germans, I find that very hard to believe, I have never seen it suggested before, and I would like to see some evidence.

If you risk your life and hide Jews in your home, and then he is found by Germans, or tortured tells your name, your whole family would have been executed. One thought twice before helping Jews.

Adam 14:47, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yet another believer of Evil Poles.

GH

I don't think this has anything to do with "evil Poles" -- anti-Semitism was fairly mainstream and widespread in late 19th century and early 20th century Europe, and I don't think Poland was an exception to that general trend. The fact that pogroms happened every two years (which does seem pretty often to me) indicates that there was in fact a fairly strong anti-Jewish sentiment in the interwar years.

All these issues do need to be written up more generally though in the context of European anti-Semitism; the phenomenon of French willingly helping Nazi catch Jews during the Vichy era is very similar. I think there has been an attempt by modern Europeans to pain themselves in retrospect as non-anti-Semites, and blame the Nazis exclusively for any harm that may have come to Jews, but I think the notion that everyone in France, Poland, etc. hid Jews in their attics and was a member of the Resistance is a bit more romantic than factual. --Delirium 01:01, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Your statement sound to me like common sense. Yet the discussion is about Adam statemants, that most of Poles were anti-Semites. I do not believe, that except brief periods of revolutions, most of people sign to extremes. Sometimes most people are forced or manouvred into extreme positions, but assigning most of them to evil faction is exegarration.

GH

When I say most Poles were anti-Semites I don't mean that they were itching to murder their Jewish neighbours. I mean that they lived in am anti-Semitic culture, promoted by the Catholic church and (after Pilsudski's death) by the Polish regime, that promoted negative views of Jews and used Jews as scapegoats for all of Poland's ills. I can quote both Smigly-Rydz and Cardinal Hlond to that effect if you want. Poland wasn't unique in that, the same was true in Hungary, Austria, Lithuania etc.

Sound completely different.

Nor did I say that all or even most Poles helped the Germans carry out the Holocaust. A few did, while a few actively helped the Jews. The great majority were passive bystanders, and in the terrible circumstances that most Poles were in by 1942 that is understandable. I would agree that there was less Polish collaboration with the Nazis in Poland than there was in (say) Ukraine or the Baltic states.

In an encyclopaedia we do not call people evil, we try to explain what happened in the context of the times. I wish our anonymous Polish friend would stop distorting the text by making these kinds of allegations. I fear also that his English isn't quite up to editing this article.

Also I am again going to redirect the General Government article to this article. The text is much the same and it serves no purpose as a separate article.

Adam 03:03, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Don't do it! Are you also going to redirect Northern Australia to Australia??

You need some orientation in Polish history to make a deep changes. Correct language, but do not change description. GH

Yes I would, if it served no useful purpose to have two separate articles. I am not Polish but I know enough Polish history to argue with you on these points. The issue here is not knowledge of Polish history but allowing ourselves to be influenced by defensive / patriotic sentiment. Adam 03:15, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Let's begin from the beginning. We have period of history of Poland 1939-45 and we have administrative division of Nazi occupation called General Goverment. If we decide, that there is more in common in the history of all the parts of occupied Poland, we should move everthing to previous. (I think otherwise, I believe there were many important differences between GG and the areas annexed by III Reich and the huge differences to situation in Soviet zone i.e. Jedwabne were located.)

But even if we decide so, there is still staff that applies to GG separately, like borders, administrative divisions, like the fact that the GG delegate on the Wansee conference demanded GG to be counted for the final solution as the first and so on. GH

Your most recent additional material is very interesting and I have no problem with it. The only thing we are disagreeing about is your paragraph about Jews collaborating with the Nazis. I have looked in six books and seen no reference to this. Where is your evidence? Adam 09:11, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

For example: http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/gallery/p146.htm

OK so your evidence that Jews collaborated with the Nazis is the existence of the Judenrats and the ghetto police, is it? This shows you don't know very much about the history of the Holocaust. These were institutions established by the Nazis, with which the Jewish community leaders were given no choice but to co-operate. They co-operated in the hope that this would appease the Nazis and improve the living conditions of the Jews in the Ghettos. That turned out to be a false hope, but it wasn't an unreasonable or dishonourable one in the circumstances. To compare this with the voluntary collaboration of those Poles who acted as "Jew-hunters" or betrayed Jews to the Nazis is absurd. Also, there is no evidence that I've ever seen that Judenrats or ghetto police ever betrayed Polish resistance fighters to the Nazis, and it's hard to see how they could have been in a position to do so. Adam 12:12, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

By the way, where to put info concerning administrative divisions, which Reichsgau particular districts belonged to? GH

Juat had a read of the page. Doesn't seem too bad. I changed some sections titles to flag pov issues and the need for a post war section.

Also should mention the shocking handover of these people to the Soviet Union at the end of World War 2. Not one of our(Britain's) finest hours! : ChrisG 11:42, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If you have detailed information about Polish units that fought in the west, please add it.
I don't recall reading about Poles who fought in the west being handed over to the Soviets - as opposed to Russians. Many of them settled here (Australia). What info do you have on this? Adam 11:46, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OK I have checked on this and I think you are mistaken. Lord Bethell's book The Last Secret makes no mention of Poles being handed over to the Soviets. I haven't got Tolstoy's book here but my memory is that he doesn't mention Poles either. The handovers were mainly of Russians who had fought in the Vlasov army or of minorities such as the Cossacks who were accused of having collaborated with the Germans, as indeed most of them had (which doesn't excuse handing them over). The Poles who fought with Anders in the west could not possibly have been accused of collaboration, and there would have been a huge outcry against forcing them to return to communist Poland or the USSR against their will. Some did return voluntarilt, but the majority settled in the US or Australia. Adam 12:25, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This probably isn't any use...at all...anyhow...

My Grandad ended up teaching soldiers from the Polish Free Corps english.

Probably utterly useless, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

Alun Ephraim 12:32, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Added links to existing (for LONG TIME) article about massacre in Jedwabne. Added mentioning about Zegota. Corrected info about Gheto uprising (IIRC there were also other uprising in Polish ghettoes before Warsaw). Added info about civil war in Poland. szopen

Actually, i think that History of Poland (1939-1945) should cover history of Poland, including the fate of different prtions of Poland, while GG should concenrate on conditions in GG, and mentioning Poznan in article about GG is, well, strange. [[user::szopen|szopen]]

I have said several times that the General Government article is a mess and should be deleted, but since no-one agrees with me it is up to those who want to keep it to edit it. Adam

Nazi Germany instead of Germany

It is historically imprecise to call the country Germany from 1932 to 1990. The country was called Germany until 1932 and again since 1990. In between it has to be called Nazi Germany (1932-1945), later West or East Germany (1945-1990). Everything else is colloquial and should not stand in an Enzyklopedia. It would not be accepted by historicians. I tried to correct it, but a user twice undoed my changes. (Andreas)

There has never been a country called Nazi Germany. The country was called Deutsches Reich from 1871 to 1945. The "historically precise" name (in English) for the country is Germany and the for the people Germans. Everybody who reads this article knows that Germany was ruled by the Nazi Party in 1939, and it doesn't need to be constantly restated. Adam 13:38, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Exactly that is, what historicians want to stress. (Andreas)

I presume from your spelling of Enzyklopedia that you are German. I understand that Germans don't like reading that Germans did things like invading Poland, and so seek to blame Nazis for all this history. But we are all stuck with our history, and the fact is that Germany did invade Poland and all the other stuff. Germans are just going to learn to live with this, and not try to tamper with the historical record. Adam 13:56, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi! I join this discussion. Maybe it's some off-topic, but just like Germans AND RUSSIANS have to live with their history and the invasion of Poland, Americans also have to live with the history of a country which is responsible for crimes even larger the Nazis, and which as late as this year invaded a country and killed thousands of civilians.

Btw.: Germany for a large part liberated German territories occupied by Poland since end of WW1, territories which legally belonged to Germany according to the Vienna congress; the ALLIED country Soviet had no reason for invading Poland, just like USA had no reason for invading Iraq. And why did not France and UK declare Soviet war for this invasion? Who massacred the Polish officers, for instance? And who started the WW2? Nico 14:10, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In Wikipedia there are wiki links to Nazi Germany, East Germany, West Germany. Nobody, who clicks "Germany" in _this_ text, thinks that a text about the modern Germany would appear. Since you even can find texts about the period using these names, they should linked. Why using the imprecise word, when Wikipedia offers the possibility for more precision? I stick to it, Nazi Germany should be used. In comparision, nobody says "Russians" when speaking about people from the former "Soviet Union", because it was another system with other borders. I am german and I know that there exist different views, but why should the American (or British?) view the only right one, only because this is an English Wikipedia version? (Andreas)

@Nico: I think it is clear, that Nazi Germany started the war, when invading Poland. But it was not Germany (Schröder, Kohl, ...) (Andreas)

None of all that is to the point. The point is, what was the name of the country which invaded Poland in 1939? The answer is Germany. And that is what an encyclopaedia has to say. End of argument. Adam 14:22, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

@Adam: Even you are right, Nazi Germany instead of Germany is not incorrect. Click on Nazi Germany and find out! It is a common name, even in English, for "The Germany in the Hitler Era". Would you accept this argumentation and would you accept that "the usage of Nazi Germany is not incorrect"? I say: "Germany is always wrong", if you accept my last view, then you say "Germany is always correct, but Nazi Germany, too." (Andreas)

I don't really understand what Andreas is saying. This is an English-language encyclopaedia and Andreas's English isn't really up to this argument. There is a German-language Wikipedia, too, you know. I will just repeat my point that the name of the country in 1939 was Germany, and that is what an encyclopaedia should call it. Adam 14:40, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What I wanted to tell you, is, that there is even in your argumentation the possibility to call "Germany" Nazi Germany. I don't accept "Germany", you do. I only accept "Nazi Germany", perhaps, you, too? That's what I want to know. For me it is the only possibility to distinguish between "Drittes Reich" and "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" in english. Therefore it should be used. (Andreas)

As I said before, Germany was legally called Deutsches Reich from 1871 to 1945. Look it up if you don't believe me. It was never called "Nazi Germany" or Drittes Reich. It's not a question of what "you accept." It's a question of historical fact. Adam 14:57, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I guess, you don't WANT to understand me. Of course It was called "Drittes Reich", that is what I said. A common english term is "Nazi Germany". It is correct to call Hitler's Germany "Nazi Germany", especially in an Encyclopedia, were just Germany is imprecise and there is no better possibility for distinction in english. (Andreas)

Andreas you're just repeating yourself. We've said all there is to say about this. If you don't know the history of youur own country I can't help you. Adam 15:06, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I removed all of this:

===Jewish POV===

Poland had a long history of indigenous anti-Semitism, and few people cared much what fate befell the Jews. There were some examples of conspicuous courage by Poles in hiding Jewish families, but an equal number of cases in which Poles betrayed Jews to the Germans, or made their living as "Jew-hunters." Since the war Jews have commented bitterly on the passive collaboration of the Polish population in the extermination of the Polish Jews. A very large number of Jews were also killed by Polish units working for the Nazis and Poles directly employed by them, and there are examples of Jews being killed by Poles even after the war was ended.

===Polish POV===

Jewish population of Poland had a long history of ambivalent feelings about Poland. Before 1938 there were strong support for communist party among Jewish population, that were in favour of creating Polish Soviet Republic. There were exmples of Polish Jews who greeted with joy Soviet troops annexing eastern Polish territories, helping them organize Soviet administration and denouncing Polish anti-communists an patriots to the Communists.

Since the beginning of the war Poles commented bitterly on the active collaboration of the Jewish population with the Soviets in the Polish areas annexed by Soviets. Many Jews, that were closed by Nazis in ghettos, didn't speak Polish, some where expelled forcibly from Germany and didn't identified with Poland at all.

In the General Government Jewish authorities of Ghettos were taking part in the Holocaust in the vain hope, that Jewish collaboraters will be allowed to survive. A very large number of Jews were also killed by Jewish units, i.e. Jewish police, working for the Nazis.

The Polish resistance forbid Poles to take part in Nazis crimes against Jews. This included the death penalty for Poles who assisted the Germans in exterminating the Jews.

At the same time, for any kind of help in hiding Jews, all Poles involved were executed by Nazis, including whole families with women and children. There were many examples of conspicuous courage by Poles in hiding Jewish families, but also cases in which Poles betrayed Jews to the Germans, or made their living as "Jew-hunters." Polish resistance organised also regular help to Jews via Zegota.

Polish resistance were unable to prevent all cases of collaboration, especially in the Polish areas annexed by Soviets, where Polish resistance were practically exterminated by Soviets before 1941.

This led to such a tragedies, like Jedwabne, where Poles, having no Polish local leadership, were involved with Nazi crimes against Jews.

After 1945, many members of Stalinsts security police, were of Jewish origins, that were brain-washed in Soviet Union. They performed the worst cruel tasks ordered by Stalin, including torturing members of Polish resistance fighting against Nazis.

After 1989 for the first time, open dispute about relationship between Poles, Germans, Soviets and Jews is possible. There is a hope that some NPOV will be found soon.

Yes, there was indigenous anti-Semitism in Poland, but the Holocaust was perpetrated by the Nazis, not the Poles, and even Poles who participated would not have done so were it not for the Nazi occupation. Many Poles were hostile to the Jews, and there was official anti-Semitism in Poland before the war, however, there were also considerable efforts to help Jews in Poland. ZEGOTA is mentioned. Jan Karski is another important example. Was Polish passivity any greater than, say, Ukrainian or Lithuanian passivity (or even Hungarian or French passivity)? I would like to see some documentation to back that up. As for the Polish POV, yes, there were many Jews who were communists (but certainly not a majority), but there were also many Jews who were proud Polish patriots, including among the communists. Jews escaped East because they did not want to be killed. Period. Yes, the Nazis forced German Jews into Poland. Many of them did not speak Polish. What is the argument? That people uprooted from their homes and forced to live in dismal conditions in a foreign country that did not really want them should feel loyalty to that country? As for collaboration in the Ghettos, that is yet another bit of nonsense. The person most frequently called a collaborator is Czerniakow--he committed suicide when he realized that the Nazis were bent on extermination. A recent PhD disertation in NYU discusses the personal ads of the Jewish press in the Warsaw Ghetto. It points to the large number of job training opportunities offered in the ghetto right up to the end. People thought--and for good reason--that if they were deemed useful, they would survive. What is the argument? That the half million Jews in the Ghetto should have chosen martyrdom, and because they didn't they are anti-Polish? What, exactly, is the "very large number" of Jews killed by the Jewish police? How many? Oh, and the Jewish police worked for the Jewish authorities, not for the Nazis. The Jewish authorities were allowed by the Nazis to create a police force to maintain order in the Ghetto. As for Jedwabne, are you saying that the Poles committed the massacre because the Soviets (whom, you earlier claimed, had plenty of Jewish backing) killed their leaders? Does that mean: a) the Poles were responsible for Jedwabne, b) the Soviets were responsible for Jedwabne, or c) the Jews were responsible for Jedwabne? Until this section can be rewritten from a decent historical perspective, I, for one, vote it stays out. Danny

Danny wrote: " The Holocaust was perpetrated by the Nazis, not the Poles"

The Nazis included also Poles, and even Poles who not were Nazis killed Jews.

Nico! Why you are not appearing in person? Poles were not members of NZ party. Some Poles served Nazis, they were called collaborators. GH

Danny wrote: " however, there were also considerable efforts to help Jews in Poland."

Yes, sure! Especially when Poland deported the whole Jewish population still living in the country in the 60s! This was also Hitler's original plan!

Nico again! It is completely different subject. Polish and Jewish fractions of Polish Communists Party quarelled and this was the outcome. Nobody asked Poles of their opinion. Of course, one of the most shamefull chapters of the history pf Polish Peoples Republic. GH

I have made another attempt to restore some coherence and objectivity to this article. Constructive comments and edits are of course welcome, but if this article is vandalised again I will ask to have it protected. Adam 03:51, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Danny wrote, "The person most frequently called a collaborator is Czerniakow--he committed suicide when he realized that the Nazis were bent on extermination."
--I would have thought that that "honor" belonged to Mordecai Rumkowski of the Lodz ghetto. He cooperated in handling over all the children of the ghetto in full knowledge of what their fate would be. But of course there is always more to the story. There ought to be a separate article on the Judenrate and the controversy about them (from Hanna Arendt to the present). --Zero 05:46, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I picked Czerniakow because he is better known than Rumkowski--the Warsaw Ghetto is better known than the Lodz Ghetto if only by virtue of the books and movies made about it, and Czerniakow's diaries are easily available in English. If you'll pardon my French (well, actually Yiddish) Rumkowski was a much bigger shmuck, but to his credit it can be said that Lodz was only liquidated in the summer of 1944. For a real problem figure, I would probably pick Moshe Merin of Sosnowiec, yet even then, there are extenuating circumstances that make it impossible for me to judge these people and the decisions they made. Danny 06:33, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Incidentally, in case you don't know it here is a reference that surveys the opinions of people in a better position to judge. The author located a lot of survivors of the ghettos and asked them what they thought of the ghetto leaders. It is Aharon Weiss, Jewish Leadership in Occupied Poland, Yad Vashem Studies, 12 (1977) 335-365. I can provide it if you can't find it. --Zero 08:53, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think an article Jewish life in Poland 1939-45 would be valuable. I have the raw materials for it but it would be a big and sensitive project. Adam 05:54, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I also have plenty of material on it, but I wonder whether it should not be part of a larger piece on 1,000 years of Jewish life in Poland (maybe it's because I have Dubnow on my desk). Of course, given the scope of the subject matter, it will probably have to be broken up anyways ... Danny 06:33, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Do either of you have any material on Zofia Kossak-Szczucka? Adam 07:13, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

When Light Pierced the Darkness: Christian Rescue of Jews in Nazi-Occupied Poland by Nechama Tec, has a bit on her. Btw, I found this out at www.amazon.com using their new "search-inside-the-books" feature. You need to log in (create an account if you don't have one, it is free). Then do a search for "Szczucka" in "books". It does a full-text search on about 150,000 books (allegedly). Then you get a list of the books it appears in. Click on "see more references" to get about 3 lines of context for each occurrence of the keyword. In many cases (alas, not this one), you can even bring up a scan of the whole page containing the reference and about 2 pages each side of it. You have to be logged in or the options are more limited. --Zero 08:48, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Few points after reading whole this discussion. TO Nico actually 1) in 1960 Polish Jews were expelled as a direct result of inter-communist fight, One fraction was considered of Jewish descendents, second were so called "partisans" or Natolin party. hardly of any relevance to WWII 2) There were no Polish units in Nazi service, period. Even Polish police was refused of arms except for few special cases and had to explain every lost bullet. 3) Again "Poland occupied legally German territory according to..." WHAT? VIenna? VIenna guaranteed that Poland will be ruled by Hohenzollerns and Poles will have guaranteed rights for development of language and culture. Kulturkampf does rign a bell? Anyway, does that mean that you consider effects Versaille pact and appendices as not legally binding??!

To the rest: As a Poles I thikn that current revision is NPOV. It mentions that some Poles were helping and some were bastards. You could also mention that although AK warned that people making living out of blackmailing Jews willl be sentenced to death and pursued after the war, few death punishmentns were actually in effect during war. Mostly because AK was _underground_ organisation.

Except for Jedwabne there is also Radzilow (IIRC), Wasosz and one othervillage, ALL in region of Jedwabne. Can't hear about similar events from elsewhere in Poland. Excellent article about Polish-Jewish relations is : http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~zbigniew/Periphery/No4/Radzilowski.html

szopen

From the village pump

revert war (well, a skirmish)

Following Angela's advice, I created a new page History of Poland (1939-1945), and redirected the old page General Government to it. An anonymous user called 145.254.117.188 keeps un-redirecting the article, plus making edits to both articles which reflect a Polish nationalist POV and are in bad English. 145 has now taken to accusing me of being anti-Polish at my Talk page as well. I therefore request that General Government be deleted, and a new, empty, General Government be created and redirected to History of Poland (1939-1945), so that 145 can't restore the old text. Adam 03:48, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that General Government was an administrative unit, so its history is only a part of history of Poland 1939-45. This doesn't make any sense to get rid of General Government. Maybe good distribution of data between pages would do the same. GH

I had problems with the same user. He made very POV (anti-German) changes to certain articles dealing Germany and Poland, which I reverted. I listed him on Problem Users, then they listed me on Problems Users. After removing myself and being relisted on Problems Users, I had User:Angela move the discussion to Talk:Heimatvertriebene (to get my name off Problem Users). The user ("GH" supposedly but never logs in) seems unwilling to make NPOV edits. Maximus Rex 04:00, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The pages you are referring to are still disputed. Information, that you try to protect, are not anti-Polish or pro-Polish, they are simply factuary wrong. Despite the fact, that I know more details about some problems, details given by my are kept deleted.GH

I don't think he knows what NPOV is, he is only here to defend Polish national honour etc. This is a type I am sadly familiar with. Also his English isn't good enough to argue with him. This reinforces my strong view that anonymous users should not be allowed to edit pages. Call me old-fashioned... Adam 04:09, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You already accepted 90% adjustments, I proposed and still made such a biased statements against me personally. If it were up to you, the reader would think that Germany in 1939 annexed only areas up to 1914 border, that Lodz belonged to General Goverrnment and probably, the most important, that Polish history 39-45 is the same as General-Government.

The only problem we have here, is that I know much more details about the interesting questions and I can help you to review your pages, so they contain true informations.

GH

I am not the slightestly inclined to get involved in more warfares around matters of Poland's history. But many contributors, in particular them being cock-sure of their own NPOV-ishness, tend to neglect the involved emotions, it seems. Not the least the degree of disappointment, sadness and anger over how Poland, when formally on the victorious side of World War II, could be so harshly hit in the post-war decades.

Now, you say, the emotions have no place in the encyclopaedic articles, and nobody would argue against that, of course. But the emotions is a driving force which complicates the issue, as you don't have to be much of a nationalist patriot to see belittling of Poland's sufferings in edits which in the rest of the world rather would be seen as pedagogically motivated simplifications. If we don't recognize the emotions behind the edit-war, then we can be pretty sure of the defeated party going increasingly bitter against wikipedia. And that is exactly what wikipedia doesn't need.

On the issue at stake, the question of a separate article on the General Government, or not, I think that would be as much appropriate as separate articles on Vichy France and the Free French.
But that's only my personal view, of course.
--Ruhrjung 18:14, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The current version is IMHO OK. The changes proposed by 145.xxx etc are IMHO caricatures of Polish view, not actual views from Poland. I propose to ignore him altogether. In the same time, GG cannot be merged with historry of Poland 1939-1945. GG covers only part of occupied Poland, and history of Poland in 1939-1945 is not only history of occupied Poland. szopen

Hey guy! Do you really think that all Poles think according to one Polish view? Common, this exact opposition of Polish pluralism. Where are 2 Poles there are 3 opinions. We are no Germans with their concept of leadership. Liberum Veto was very Polish concept. GH

Hehehe... Actually Liberum Veto was not Polish concept. it was quite standard throughout Europe, it only sticked to us... But anyway, "Polish POV" to me does not seem much Polish. I mean, it was too biased even for presenting someone's Pov szopen

You are joking! Many Polish chauvinists have much more nationalists view, then it was written here. I think, if Jews and Germans can have their nationalistic POV (Germans only outside Germany), why Poles should be denied its rights? GH

I'm wondering about GH's comment "We are no Germans with their concept of leadership". I would call it anti-german racism. Germany is a federal state with weak central leadership today. After WWII in Germany a refurbishment took place, that lead to the 1968-generation. Steven 82.82.117.221 14:10, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am sorry, you are right, I am wrong. I have big respect for achievements of Germans for past 1200 years. My comment should have been like that "We are not like Germans 1933-45, with their concept of leadershipGH

So now we have settled that, why don't one of you quarrelsome Poles find some biographical facts about Zofia Kossak-Szczucka? Where was she born? What did she write? How did she survive Auschwitz? What did she do after the war? There's lots about her on the Net but it's all in Polish. Adam 09:43, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I guess this is not for me, since I doubt i could be called "quarellsome" B-D szopen

All Poles are quarrelsome :) Adam It is called "to incite Rokosz" ( from Rakos fields in Hungary). But you shouldn't be allowed by politicall correctness to use the word ALL.GH

At your request, Adam. Zofia Kossak-Szczucka, Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, Czartak, Zegota. -- szopen

Debate on German occupation of Poland

Adam, i didn't say that current version is final, but only that it is OK. Also Polish HQ considered that German will stop after taking Pommerania etc as one of very possible alternatives, therefore "may" isntead of would.

And what's wrong with "Generalplan ost" mentioning??!

It's no good just mentioning it. What is it? Why is it relevant?

As to quote, it's very well known, although sometimes (erroneusly) attributed as about fate of the Jews.

Full quote: http://www.armenian-genocide.org/statements/hitler.htm

http://www.diaspora-net.org/Turkey/Armenian_Genocide.html

http://www.ancsf.org/files/armenian%20genocide/Hitler%20and%20the%20Armenian%20Genocide.pdf

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/cragsite/MikeJosephSpeech.htm

This is link about soemone who tried to validate this quote: http://www.zoryaninstitute.org/Books/book_hitler_and_armenian.htm

The world is full of bogus Hitler quotes. That one doesn't sound like something he would say to troops or in public. Anyway the war against Poland was not a "war of extermination", it was a war of conquest. Extermination came later. I don't think it adds anything to text.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Extermination started 1 IX 1939, and einsatzgruppen and shooting Poles in masss execution. Poles were also shooted by Wehrmacht (e.g. many examples when German solderis exectued villagers ebcause Polish army was giving stronger than usuall resistance nearby etc). I would also say it's not bogus. It was used in Nurenburg trial, saw the full quote? There are sources for German original too szopen

Adam 13:58, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC) szopen

A war of extermination is a war where a nation gets exterminated. Hitler did not exterminate the Poles, or even try to, although that may have been his longterm intention. If he had you wouldn't be here, would you? The Einsatzgruppen killed Jews, not Poles, and even them not until 1941. The killings of Poles you mention were incidental, not part of a planned extermination. I will look into the Hitler, but even if it is authentic, I don't think it adds to the narrative. Adam 14:06, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen killed Poles (and Jewish Poles) in 1939, althought they later also killed Jews and communists. EINSATZGRUPPEN were in 1939 shooting Poles in mass executions. POles WERE to be enslaved, about 1/4 of them were to be exterminated and rest turned into slave east of Ural. Also his and his minions terms were to exterminate as much Poles as it is possible. Many quotes from Frank and other will confirm this. szopen

Adam, you are probably unaware, that every city or village in Poland has its own cemetary of Poles (not-Jewish Poles) executed in mass graves. Village I attended as primary school with 400 dwellers, had mass grave of 43 locals. AM

I don't deny that at all - the article says that 3 million non-Jewish Poles were killed in the occupation. But that is not the same thing as a "war of extermination." If the Nazis had waged a war of extermination in Poland there would be 30 million dead, not 3 million.

Here are Heydrich's intructions to the Einsatzgruppen: it's all about the Jews, no mention of Poles: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/heydrich_instructions.html

I think Szopen that you, and the other Poles who contribute here, are the products of a Polish education system which promotes a particular Polish nationalist mythology which sees the Poles as unique victims of Naziism and plays down the Jewish aspect. We all understand the historical reasons for this. But younger Poles really need to do some thinking about this Polish nationalist mythology.

Adam 14:32, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am going to bed now so you have 12 hours to prepare a reply :) Adam 14:34, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, Adam. We don't see ourselves as single unique victims. We see ourselves as victims with suffering second only to Jews and gypsies. In fact in school I was almost vomiting with all those "martyrology of the nation" lessons, which always stressed Jewish suffering. How many books on the concentration I had to read? Nalkowska and making soap from Jews. Borowski. Gee, sometimes we were really fed up with all of this.

But i see that some person here are result of education system which put "extermination" words are exclusively Jewish, and tries to belittle other victims (Gypsies, Jehova witnesses, homosexuals AND also, in much less scale but still Poles and other SLavs). Also, you quoted orderes from Heydrich from site which basically is stressing Jewish suffering. Einsatzgruppen were first put in Czechoslovakia IIRC, in may 1939. Then they were disbanded and reactivated in 1939 and put to the action, acting on the rear of the army, killing intelligentsia, journalists, etc. Including also Jews. Here just the proof that einsatzgruppen were active in 1939 (first paragraph, the rest is not revelent): http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-031-01.html.

See my Operation Tannenberg for effects of first actions against Poles during WWII.

Generalplan Ost - you don't know what it is?!? Generalplan Ost was plan of future fate of eastern Europe. "Endlosung of Jewish quesiton" was part of it, although separatey discussed. It was that all Poles would be expelled from Poland except for 3-4 million who would be turned into slaves, Polish intelligentsia would be exterminated as well as everyone who would be considered dangerous, and the rest would be kept in conditions which would made rise of death rate. In it Germans presented vision that Poles would cease to exists as the nation.

Sometimes whole darn villages were wiped out. People were shooted on the street. War of conquest may be brutal, but not that brutal.

Also, for God sake, Adam, 1,8 -1,9 million civilians, non -Jewish, ehtnic Poles died as a result of what? Too much sunbathing?

See here for some details: http://www.ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.pdf

Szopen:
On extermination:

The word "extermination" does not just mean "killing a lot of people" or even "mass killing of selected groups of people" (as in Operation Tannenberg. It means killing everyone.
Hitler set out to exterminate the Jews, and in Poland at any rate he came close to succeeding.
He did not set out to exterminate the Poles, at least not in the immediate term. If he had wanted to exterminate the Poles, what sense did Operation Tannenberg make? Why target the national elite if you intend exterminating the entire nation?
I don't dispute for a second the enormous suffering of the Polish nation in WW2. You cite a figure of 1.9 million - I actually said 3 million earlier, and the article says that too. But in a nation of 30 million that is not extermination.

You note that I obtained the Heydrich quote from a Jewish wesbite. Are you alleging that the quote has been faked by "the Jews"? If not, why does it matter where I got it from? This just reflects (IMHO) the Polish paranoia about the Jews. As I said earlier, I understand the historical reasons for this, but people who want to be historians need to make an effort to overcome these sentiments.

On General Plan Ost, I didn't say I didn't know what it was, I said the sentence you inserted into the article didn't explain what it was, and therefore it just served to confuse the reader. If you think it is important, write a paragraph on Hitler's plans for Poland and put it in.

As I said to AM recently, I am not anti-Polish - if i was why would I bother writing this article, as well as articles on Wladyslaw Sikorski, Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski, Zofia Kossak-Szczucka and Jan Karsky, all people I greatly admire? But it is the historian's job to separate facts from national mythology, and to try to present what happened with objectivity, even when (particularly when) the subject-matter is as painful as this.

Cheers, Adam 23:52, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adam, i dind't say that quote of Heydrich was fabricated. I say, that it came from the site concentrating on Jewish suffering, and therefore it's not surprising that it contains information related to Jewish victims. Documents from Polish site contain more info about Polish victims, but you wouldn't expect me to cite them as proof that orders to kill Jews were nonexisting, would you?! I do not doubt that quote is authentic. WHich DOES NOT mean that there were no other orders/documents ordering extermination of Polish intelligentsia.

About number of Poles killed: there is no exact number and never will be. Before war ESTIMATED number of population in Poland was about 34-35 million IIRC (1931 census gives number 32 million, 1921 some 27 million), from which some 69% was identifying themselves as Polish, which gives us about 24 million Poles. About 6 million Polish citizens died during war, 2-3 million Jews, 2-3 million Polish non-Jewish and others. The border between Polish and Jewish is blur. There were Jews, who died because they were Jewish, who nevertheless considered themselves Polish and sometimes only link to their Jewishness was forgotten heritage of grandparents. 1.8 million of ethnic Poles is lowest current estimation of Polish civilians (non-military deaths) excluding those who died because their were Jews and other nationalities. After the war in 1946 census gives us number of 23.4 million citizens. About 2.3 million of which were officially German (unoficial estimation is 3.5 million), Belorussian, Ukrainian about 0.7 million and 40-120 thousand Jews. Which gives us 19-20 million ethnic Poles. Right? And during period of war if birth rate of before war was kept, i think that some 3 million Poles should be born, right? Some Poles were left in soviet Russia, some stayed in the west. But still, 24 - 19 + 3 = 8 million missing (at most) or 23-20= 3 million missing (at lowest possible count of missing) of ethnic, mostly catholic, Poles. Of which 2 million most probably died as result of occupation and few hundred thousand were military deaths. The rest were displaced people, those who stayed in Soviet union, those who stayed in the west.

About "extermination" word. Your goal is exterminate whole elite of the nation (about 20-25% of nation), turn rest into slaves, disperse them etc. Your desired result is that as many as possible people will die and nation will cease to exist. I would call it definetely war of extermination. In war of conquest you want to conquer people and territory. But Hitler's goal was to conquer territory and kill as much as possible people. Exterminating elite makes much sense, because it removes people who will most likely to oppose, while rest can hope that it won't come for them.

Also, Nazi officials (e.g. Frank, when said something in sense that "extermination of Poles and achieving more productivity and support of German war effort is contradiction and compromise had to be made") used few times word "extermination" when talking about Poles.

Anyway, common sense in Poland during war and after war was that "we are next". szopen

For me the choise of word is a sort of a sanitation matter. Slavonics were treated extremely harshely by the Nazis, but the matter at stake is if they were treated as harshely as were the Jews or the Gypsies. On one hand, its important not to forget that there were other victims of the Nazis than the Jews. On the other hand, it's important not to belittle the fate of the Jewry by diffuse and wide definitions equating their suffereings with that of for instance homosexuals or Red Army political officers. Also these had hard times, and could as individuals do nothing to escape their terrible fate, similarly to the situation for the national elites in Slavonic lands, but still there is a difference to the extermination of the Jewry which, mind you!, was almost completed before the end of the war. There is a difference: It wasn't the elite of the Jewry they targeted for industrial massmurders, it was all of the Jewry.
--Ruhrjung 09:18, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Eh, Ok. Yet, the quote of Hitler is to be find out in almost every article about POland under occupation.

Actually i am reding now Generalplan Ost usmmaries and noted one sentence missed earlier, that Poles and Russians can't be "exterminated" because that would arouse the world, so only their elite has to be destroyed, nation resetllted and dispersed. Curious that they were affraid that extermination of Poles would arouse the world, and nothing like that about extermination of Jews... szopen

Both User:Danny (who is a professional Holocaust historian) and User:Zero0000 doubt that the "Armenian" Hitler quote is genuine, despite the fact that it is frequently cited. They are checking sources. (There is a parallel with the Hitler "law and order" quote which is also frequently quoted but is definitely bogus). I will leave it in unless and until Danny or Zero advise that it is not genuine. Adam 10:22, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Very nice work finding the quote! Danny 10:49, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

But do you think it is genuine? And what do you think of the above discussion generally? Adam 10:58, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can we have somebody not-Jewish to work on the quote problem as well? It is really very common quote, so if it was really bogus, I would have been really surprised. Then we should inform 40 000 000 of Poles as well, starting from professional historians. And then inform Armenians... Please triple check! AM

(Just when I was ready to agree that not all Poles are anti-Semites... ah well. Adam)

Adam, so are you saying that I am antisemite? If so, please show me when i wrote something which would confirm that. As for AM, I think his word isn't anti-semitic. Someone not-Jewish, not-Polish and not-Armenian would have to work on the quote, since I (Poles) or Armenians probably would want to do everything to find arguments for and maybe missed important arguments against. This is quite natural and had nothing to do with xenophobia. Neutral person on other hand, who has no earlier assumption, free of prejudices will came to conclusion earlier.

BTW, "I was ready to agree that not all Poles are anti-semites" means that you think that all Poles are anti-semites now. Which (paraphrasing some person) may be result fo certain education system or paranoia over Polish quesiton in some circle (/paraphrasing).

Since i started discussing in usenet i found plethora of such persons, including such authorities as Kimel who were able to say that "Polish large losses are myth" or others who were happily saying that Poles helped Nazis in concentration camps and similar. This may caused certain attitude in me not present earlier, which may cause some of my wordings feeling uneasy for you, Adam. If so, point me them, and I will try to correct. I you can't, i expect apologise. I do not consider myself anti-semite, anti-German, anti-Czukcza or anti-whatever (although i have certain pro-Polish skew in discussions, but i am aware of that and if not opposing Polono-eaters i try to control it) (i am not counting you in that category to avoid misunderstandings) szopen

AM, I don't quite understand your problem. Yes, I am Jewish. I do not believe either Adam or Zero is. I have now consented that, given the sources, the quote looks real. If you follow some of the few very minor additions I have made here (and these were only to the Talk pages), I have defended Poles. As for other persecutions, check out the history of the Porajmos article, which I started and of which I wrote the bulk, and the Bydgoszcz article to which I added an account of the massacre. I do not deny the massacre of Poles or even that Poles were gassed for a period in Auschwitz. I have a position on Jedwabne which I haven't clarified, but it is very similar to that of Tomasz Szarota (see Więź, April 2001). I do reject my position being questioned because of my ethnic background, all the more so before you know what my opinion is. Danny 11:19, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Danny, please accept my appology, if you feel offended. I didn't know that you are "our" Jew. :) Seriously, I do not trust historians, the only what I trust are source materials. The Situation as it loooked when the controversy started, was that Jewish scientists didn't believe that the statements is true, or they alleged that Hitler meant Jews, while in Poland, every child knows that statement is related to Poles. Even if you found that the statements is bogus, this would not make any break through, simply both sides would stand on the same positions. Opposite is true, if serious Polish historian would doubt in the statement or if a Jewish scientist found that the statement is original, this makes the compromise possible, and therefore is the base for NPOV. I hope that my explanations are sufficient. Do not take personally mistrust of historians, since we in Poland learned much about how governments forged history. And opposite is true, if in your country people still trust official history, this only means how naive people can be. If you are an exception this is wonderful.AM

Danny, I have a lot of respect to people like you, who are able to take neutral position without earlier prejudices. I am, unfortunately, not one of such person (although i did changed my mind a lot of times during discussion even in wikipedia). I don't know why you put your answer under mine. Was that because i tried to explain AM position? If chinese write about polish case nobody would cause him about POVishness (this would be just silly). Not that _I_ care much. eh, need definetely vacation not just from Silesia, but from whole wikipedia. --szopen

I should know better than to make ironic remarks here... Adam 11:27, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adam, it doesn't matter whether you intended it as irony or not. I feel offended. Either poitn me what my sentences or behaviour you consider antisemitic (and i will apologise and try correct it), or apologise szopen

Szopen, my comments were directed to AM, not you. They just landed that way because of an edit conflict. I do have problems with what he wrote, specifically in singling out Jews. Was there anti-Semitism in Poland, before and after the war? Sure, but it never reached the proportions its reached under German rule--as Celan wrote about the Holocaust (and Gutman quotes, discussing Poland), Der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland. I still like to think that Jews and Poles can work together to better understand this tragic period in both our histories. Danny 11:40, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you are offended, Szopen, I apologise. My remark was in any case directed at AM, who said "Can we have somebody not-Jewish to work on the quote problem as well?", which I think by any reasonable standard is an anti-Semitic remark (and I am not Jewish by the way). Adam 11:44, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adam, I hoped that at least you would compare me to Zofia Kossak ;) Seriously, you really offended me again. I will put another chapter on you in the trouble user section. First, you should explain to me, why you didn't know that statement, while in Poland everybody knows it? It is there is your POV and there is Polish POV. The difference is, that we know your POV, partly because we understand your language, partly because your POV is POV mainstream culture, while you don't understand our POV, because you do not speak our language and our POV is local one. And this is the reason, why I probably read more works of Jewish historians then you, and for sure more then you read books of Polish historians. Knowing those works, I am able to dystinguish between people that try to NPOV and those that belong to extreme, and I realize the latter are pretty numerous. If we want Poles and Jews to agree at least on facts, there must be common work, and this what I wanted to suggest. Maybe I phrased it little bit odd, nevertheless I didn't exclude the option that those statements were bogus, and we were fed with the propaganda, as in many different cases. I am awaiting an appology. AM

Adam, could you please explain why you removed reference to Armenian quote?! It seems totally strange, taking into account previous discussion over the issue... Almost like you were bored and decided starting another edit war? Szopen

I deleted it because coming back to this article reminded me about it. It doesn't really fit in the narrative and I have never been persuaded that the quote is authentic. I only gave up last time because I was sick of arguing with Polish nationalists. Adam 08:59, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adam, don't "Polish nationalist" me. You have very strong POV and it seems it may be summarised in "if Pole said that, this is NPOV". I will agree with you as soon as you will remove armenian quote from different holocaust museums and armenian genocide page. I am putting it back, if the only objection is "i feel it doesn't suit article and in my opinion it's not authentic". This is not essey. Szopen

Redrawing borders

The redrawing of the Polish borders was made by the Allies (US, UK and Soviet Union and not only by Stalin. Pro-Western Polish govermnent in exile in London, Pro-Soviet Polish government in Lublin and the united Polish government in Warsaw demanded to move the Polish-German border to the west and received it. On the same time they cannot prevent losses in the east. Mestwin of Gdansk 03:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The facts of this matter are as follows:

Once Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, it was obvious that if Germany was defeated the Soviets would advance into central Europe, including Poland
The departure of General Anders and his army to Iran meant that there were no Polish forces on the eastern front, except for the Communist controlled Berling army.
It was decided at Tehran that the western allies would invade France in 1944. This meant that there was no chance of a western advance through the Balkans, which in any case would not have reached as far north as Poland.
Therefore the Soviets were always going to be in physical control of Poland once the Germans retreated. In these circumstances there was no possibility of the western allies stopping Stalin doing what he pleased in Poland.
Ever since 1941, and probably in fact ever since 1922, the Soviets were determined to establish a Soviet-Polish frontier roughly corresponding to the Curzon Line, on the grounds that the population east of this line was majority non-Polish, despite the presence of Polish-majority cities such as Lwow.
At Tehran Stalin presented his proposed new borders for Poland: the Oder-Neisse line in the west, the Curzon Line (roughly) in the east. Churchill and Roosevelt had no alternative but to accept this, since they had no way of influencing events on the ground in the east.
These were Stalin's plans, not Churchill and Roosevelt's. Churchill opposed them, and tried to find a compromise with Stalin as late as November 1944. But he was much the weakest of the three allies and had no leverage without Roosevelt, who was not interested in arguing with Stalin.
The Polish government in exile had irreparably damaged its relations with the Soviets by insisting on an independent investigation of the Katyn massacre. Mikolajczyk therefore had no bargaining power with Stalin. His last card was the Warsaw rising of 1944. Once this was defeated the Soviets were in complete control of the situation.
Churchill took the view that the London Poles should not insist on the 1922 borders if this meant antagonising Stalin, when the real issue was who was going to hold power in Warsaw after the war. It is possible, though not very likely, that Poland might have avoided undiluted communist rule if the London Poles had been willing to compromise on the borders.
In any case, a very good case can be made that Poland was much better off with the 1945 borders than with the 1922 borders. The new Poland was ethnically homogenous, with more defensible borders, and the western territories included the Silesian coalfields and the ports of Danzig and Stettin. This was seen by most including many Poles as a fair swap for the forests and swamps of the eastern territories.
It is true that millions of Poles were expelled or fled from the eastern territories, and that this entailed a great deal of suffering on top of what Poland had already suffered. On the other hand, Poles of all political views were happy to grab the western territories, which had been German for centuries, and expel millions of Germans with even greater suffering.

Adam 05:26, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your opinions are right with one exception:

It was not Stalin's idea to move the Western border of Poland to the Odra-Nysa line. This border was requested by the Polish government in Exile as early as 1940. There was even a special working comitee pereparing document to convince the Allies and to prepare for the future peace conference.
The difference was that he Polish government desired to extend Polish borders to the west, leaving the eastern borders without change. At the same time Stalin desired to move the Soviet-Polish border, and treated the western aquisition as a compesantion.

In September 1939 Poland was invided by the Nazi Germany (1st Sept) and the by Soviet Union (17th Sept) and later occupied and divided between the two countries. Luckily the 2 enemies started to fight in 1941, so this gave Poland a change to fight with only one enemy.

The final result of the Polish-German war was the Poland's win and territorial gains in the west.
The final result of the Polish-SOviet war was the Poland's defat and a territiorial lost inth east.

Mestwin of Gdansk 05:53, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The key issue is not the western border - everyone was happy to take lands from the Germans. The key issue is the eastern border. The Soviet agenda was always to bring the whole of Belarus and Ukraine under Soviet rule, and to create a clear-cut ethnic border along the Curzon Line. In the context of WW2, this was Stalin's agenda, not that of the western allies, who had no strategic interests in the area. Their only choice was to acquiesce in Stalin's plan, or to antagonise Stalin by putting up a futike resistance to it. They chose the former, they were quite right to do so in the context of WW2 as a whole, and the London Poles should have known that they would. Why should the western allies have jeopardised their alliance with Stalin, who held all the keys to defeating Hitler and liberating Europe from his rule, for the sake of Poland's supposed right to control a piece of land in which Poles were a minority? Adam 06:06, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Its interesting that Mestwin says that the PGIE wanted the Oder-Neisse border as early as 1940 (no i am not going to call it "Odra-Nysa" as i detest the kind of bigotry that is inherent in such name pushing (just like a pole calling Germans teutonic scoundrels on the Poznan page history)) but on the Oder-Neisse line talk page, another Pole says that the government in exile would have been happy with the 1939 borders in both east _and_ west. PMA 07:33, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Mestwin, or whoever he is, is worthless and not worth listening to. See him and Space Cadet joking around about me being a Nazi on Talk:Gdansk. I'm sick of these POV pushers who make practically any work on anything having to do with Poland impossible. john 07:52, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is also interesting that Mestwin, like other Polish editors here, sees what Poland wanted as the only relevant consideration. He says himself that Poland wanted both the western territories, which were inhabited mostly by Germans, and the eastern territories, which had a Ukrainian-Belarusian majority - a veritable Polish empire! And they expected Churchill and Roosevelt to help them achieve this. He ignores the fact that the whole of Europe was under Nazi rule, and that the western allies had other concerns than the territorial ambitions of Poland to consider. Stalin was the key to defeating Hitler, as well as to the whole postwar settlement of Europe, and the allies were quite right to tell the Poles that they should accept the borders they were being offered and not pick fights with Stalin that they had no hope of winning. Adam 07:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My intention was to show you that the phrases like Stalin gave something to a country are simply not in neutral language, and usually not true. - Mestwin of Gdansk 22:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But Stalin did "give" Poland things: new borders, a Communist government and the Palace of Culture in Warsaw, to name but three. I didn't say they were necessarily good things. Adam 07:55, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adam, first things first. - reference to your allegations on former "adam carr is anti-polish bigot" page.

1) It seems you don't know how to read. Yes, YOU CANT. POint me where i refused to use DANZIG in the name of the articles. POINT ME IN PAGE HISTORIES WHERE I REFUSED TO ADMIT THAT DANZIG was used in the past. TO remind you, i always proposed using Gdansk (Danzig) convention consequently through all history of the city, including modern times. 2) You are ignoring things not easy to you. You ocntinue to repeat that there was Belarussian/Ukrainian majority in the east. This is partial truth. Poles were majority in Middle Lithuania, minority in Ukrainian lands (but there were territories where they were majorities too) and in Belarus - but Belarussians were not calling themselves Belarussians (they called themselves "natives" "tutejsi"). My family was expelled from territories which were exclusively Polish and had not a single non-Polish inhabitant. (In fact, to this day there is larg ePolish minority there). 3) POint me where i contributed to nationalist version of history. I am men able to change his mind - just f* see my discussion of Brmoberg massacre. Your answer is just calling other people names (like calling me Polish nationalist). Show me something which could prove that i am Polish nationalist. Use my user contributions history. Point to the sentences (but not taken out of the context) which prove that i am Polish nationalist. If you can't, stop call me nationalist just because you don't like me or my opinions. 4) In fact the only people accusing me of nationalism is YOU and Helga Jonat (who is banned now from wikipedia - Nico was accusing me ocne but i think he changed his mind). Go and insert my name into conflict users page. Go and see how many people will back you. You don't know me. You don't care to know me, which is fine, but don't accuse me just because you don't care to or can't read.

When i started writing it, i was really enraged.. i hope i edited out all the f* remarks. If i omitted some, apologise. Szopen

Current protection status

I am requesting to start discussion to resolve dispute over the current, protected version of wikipedia. There are currently 2 issues:

Adam Carr's doubts about Armenian quote. If he has some substantial proves, he should discuss it, instead of making empty doubts.
I object referring to the Eastren Poland as having Ukrainian/Bellorussian majority. This sentence is Stalin's opinion, originally saying that Soviet nationalities have majority in Eastern Poland. As we already established, this is not true.

there is no Ukrainian/Bellorussian nation

there were areas, where Ukrainians or Bellorussians had majority. There were areas where Poles had majority. There were areas where Jews had majority. However, statement that all areas East of Curzon line had Ukrainian or Bellorussian majority and all areas West of Curzon line had Polish majority is simple lie.

most of all, most of Ukrainians and Bellorussians didn't want to be Soviet citizens.

There were many people that believed, Poland was betrayed by Western allies. I don't think you can ignore that opinions. Make NPOV yes, but removing all references is falsification of history.

Instead shutting somebody's mouth over factual falsification, please discuss issues Cautious 16:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how saying that the eastern areas had a majority of Ukrainians and Belorussians over all implies that there weren't regions there that had a Polish majority. But it's a basic fact that the areas which had been Polish on August 31, 1939, which were a part of the Soviet Union from 1945 did have a non-Polish majority, even if isolated regions within there had had a Polish majority. john 18:49, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From Curzon line article:

Poles 4,794,000 39.9%

Ukrainians and Ruthenians      4,139,000  34.4%
Jews                           1,045,000  08.4% 
Byelorussians                    993,000  08.5%
Russians                         120,000  01.0%
Lithuanians                       76,000  00.6%
Others and not given             845,000  06.4%

(the others were mainly Poleszuks from Polesie)

Yes, if you artificially combine Ukrainians and Bellorussians you can calculate such a majority, but what it prooves? Even Adam Carr, somebody you cannot call fan of Poles, said clearly that Curzon line was not a line dividing ethnic Poland from non-Polish East. The page was protected, because somebody believe such a factual errors should be protected. Cautious

Border provocations

I understand from another source that the border provocations mentioned in the first paragraph were in fact, at least partly, staged by Germans disguised as Polish operatives. I would like to see this confirmed somewhere and would also be interested to know whether any Polish were involved in real "provocations". --Cfailde 13:57, 2004 Jul 10 (UTC)

So far as I know the "provovations" were a complete German invention, although there was at least one staged fake provocation of the kind you mention, an "attack" on a German army post in Silesia. The pre-war Polish regime was pretty stupid, but not stupid enough to provoke the Germans in such a way. Adam 16:09, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yup. Halibutt 16:55, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Polish Secret State

To all whom it may concern (regardless of nationality, race, skin colour or religion) - at Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland I'm starting a Polish Secret State Project. Its purpose is to describe all the political, military and social organizations in occupied Poland during WWII as well as the Polish Government in Exile agenda, underground media and such. Take a look at Talk:Polish Secret State for more details and a broader explanation of my idea. I'd appreciate any help, especially in describing the political parties during WWII and their military organizations. The (very early and far from being ready) list of red links is here. I'd appreciate any help. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 03:26, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

References and peer review

Well, seems like we have quite a good article here. This needs references though. Any other ideas for improvement before I submit this to Wikipedia:Peer review and eventually Wikipedia:Featured article candidates? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Numbers, numbers

Why do strengh estimates differ from those in the Polish September Campaign articles? References please! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, this article gives Germans: 1.6 million troops, 250,000 trucks and other such motor vehicles, 67,000 artillery pieces, 4000 tanks, one cavalry division, 2000 plains, while PSC article - which has ilinked online references - gives 1,8 million soldiers, 10,000 guns, 2,800 tanks and 3,000 aircraft. Polish: 800,000 troops, including eleven cavalry brigades, two motorized brigades, 30,000 artillery pieces, and 120 tanks of the advanced 7-TP type. The Polish airforce consisted of 400 aircraft. 160 of them were PZL P.11c fighter aircraft, 31 PZL P.7a and 20 P.11a fighters, 120 PZL P.23 reconnaissance-bombers, and 45 PZL P.37 medium bombers. Meanwhile, PSW article sais: 1 million soldiers, 4,300 guns, 880 tanks, 435 aircraft. Few minor notes from the PSW article: only 600,000 Polish troops were mobilised by Sep 1. The 880 tanks are explained in the text as 132 7-TP and 300 tankettes. Polish fighers number: 169. This is rather confusing. See table at Talk:Polish September Campaign#Numbers, numbers in which I summed up the numbers and where I will post futher comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Karol Świerczewski

Can anyone here please translate article about Karol Świerczewski for English Wikipedia ?

Thank you in advance (Fisenko 04:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I will begun translating into Karol Swierczewski. OOC, what brought your interest in him? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was reading about UPA, Stepan Bandera, Soviet partisans and related subjects. Afterwards I expanded, translated from Russian and wrote few articles for Wikipedia. I remembered from my Polish history class about Swierczewski and I wanted to write an article about him as well, however, most of information about him online is in Polish and since I don't understand it I realized I need help. (Fisenko 18:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Redrawing borders #2

In a book I read it was briefly mentioned that Stalin was supposed to have had a plan/idea of "uniting" the central european states and balkan countries into larger blocks. One of these "blocks" was supposed to be comprised from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Belarus.

Does this stuff sound familiar in any way? Since there was no adequate reference in the book (a Swedish book about Belarus) I am having trouble in verifying it.

"Soviet aid"

"The Soviet Union could have assisted Poland, but the Poles feared Stalin's communism nearly as much as they feared Hitler's Nazism, and during 1939 they had refused to agree to any arrangement which would allow Soviet troops to enter Poland. The Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 had ended any possibility of Soviet aid." - from article, paragraph 5, part "German and Soviet Invasion".

Sentence about "Soviet aid" being something which could have *really* helped Poland to defend against Nazism, which Poland has refused and what was it's own fault, is AFAIK completely wrong, since Soviet government wasn't interested in really helping Poland, instead it wanted to absorb Poland (just like Nazis), and having troops inside Poland's territory, that would be easier. If Soviet progpaganda was saying something else, you got it - that's propaganda. I think, that anyone who have heard anything about Soviet methods of "helping" other nations, will know what I mean. So, if other people will agree, I suggest to change "The Soviet Union could have assisted Poland, but the Poles feared Stalin's communism..." *at* *least* to "The Soviet Union could have "assisted" Poland, but the Poles feared Stalin's communism...". 80.51.51.27 18:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)